Vy RESTRICTION IN CONFIilCT l^^ITH JUDICIAIi 
AUTHORITY. 




11 

OF NORTH CAROLIJSTA. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF R]<: PRESENT ATI VES, MAY 2, 1860. 

Tiie Jlouse being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union— Mr. SMITH, of North 
Carolina, said : 

Mr. Chairman: In the year 1S50 we had gathering over our heads a storm not 
less portentous than that which now threat.ens the peace of the country. When 
Millard FiUmore, who had uot the confidence of a considerable number of the ex- 
treme southern States, entered upon the presidential office he encountered obstacles 
of no ordinary difficulty to overcome. By the aid of patriotic men of all sections 
of the country, and of all political parties, the pending troublesome questions were 
arranged. California came into the Union. The slave traffic in the District of Co- 
lumbia was prohibited. The controversy with Texas was adjusted, and Utah and 
New Mexico organized upon plans which promised to secure the permanent peace 
and repose of the country upon questions of a sectional nature. Although the vote 
upon these various propositions indicate no entire concurrence with regard to them 
all, yet, as a series of measures constituting a compromise, this country, from one 
end of it to the other, accepted them, and both political parties which met next 
after their adoption — that noble partj^ sir, with which I have always claimed the 
honor to belong, and the Democratic party — declared, in the most solemn form to 
the country, t'.eir purpose to abide by the measures which constitute the legislation 
of 1850. More than that. He whose name is never mentioned without awakening 
recollections of a patriotism worthy the better days of the Republic, Henry Clay, 
and other brave men, signed a solemn proclamation to the country, in which they 
made known their unalterable purpose to sustain for no legislative office. State or 
Federal, any man who was disposed to disturb and uproot the compromise which 
had been niade, and upon which depended the public repose. 

Millard Fillmore's administration was the only Whig Administration that this 
country has seen; and when he retired from the public servicehe carried with him 
the meed of his country's approval: "Well done, good and faithful servant." His 
administration had been firm, yet moderate, and when his sun set, it set full-orbed, 
as it was in its meridian splendor, without a spot upon its disk, or any diminutioa 
of its brightness. 

Another party succeeded to the possession of power. The last of its two terms 
of office ifl drawing to a close, and now upon its retirement, the same portentous 
future which in 1850 inspired apprehensions of impending disaster, opens to view, 
and flings its dark shadows over the political landscape. Reeentevents have crea- 
ted an intensity of excitement in the popular mind, scarcely finding its parallel in 
our history; and discord, jealousy, and a feeling of distrust and insincerity prevail 
throughout the laud. 

•Upon the floor of this Hall we have heard uttered by extreme men of both politi- 
cal parties, off'ensive and irritating language, crimination and recrimination — mena- 
ces of defiance and violence, indicating the depth and extent of an agitation without 
which now rocks the Union itself to its very centre. Well may the heart of the patriot 
quail, when he remembers that at such a crisis the great men who assisted in com- 
posing our former sectional strifes, of whom Massachusetts claims one, Kentucky the 
other, and the nation both, are not living to bring to our deliberations their pacific 
counsels and their healing measures. 

Mr. Chairman, we must look at the facts as they are. Instead of the language of 
violence and menace, which has been too often indulged in upon this floor, we ought, 
and do, according to the theory of our Government, meet here for the purpose of 
friendly consultation, and with the view of striking out some measures of general 
usefulness that shall redound to the honor, the well-being, and the prosperity of this 
great country, which we all proudly claim to be our jiome. Now, what are the 
existing subjects of controversy? Gentlemen on my light charge that the South 
has been the aggressive party almost from the very origin of our Government down 
to this hour ; and one geutleu^ian has even brought forward, in the form of a specific 



/ 



2 

accusation, a series of cliarges, in which we are made to do violence and wrong to 
the section of tlie country which he represents. WJiy is it that we have no peace ? 
Y/hy is it that these disturbing elements are still in our midst? 

But, Mr. Chairman, I prefer to go back, for one or two moments, to the origin of 
our Government, to its earliest history, to notice and repel a charge which has been 
heralded from one end of this land to the other, that the spiiit of the Constitution 
under which we live is hostile to the existence of domestic slavery, and will ulti- 
mately subvert and destroy it. To sustain this assertion reference is constantly 
made to our early action imder the Constitution, when the Qovernment was admin- 
istered by the hands of those who framed that Constitution, and especially to the 
ordinance of 1787, which forbids slavery throughout the tei'i'itory acquired from 
Vii'ginia. It is true, as has been rejieatedly stated in this discussion, that A^irginia 
ceded a magnificent empire on the northwest of the Ohio with a knowledge that Con- 
gress had passed an ordinance forever excluding slavery from any portion of it. 
But, in this connection, it must not be forgotten that Virginia, also, by an act passed in 
December, 1780, consented to the foi-niation of the State of Kentucky within her lim- 
its, and Kentuck\', as a slaveholding State, was admitted into the Union in June, 1792. 

North Carolina, by deed in February, 1790, executed under an act other General 
Assembly of December preceding, ceded to the Federal Government that rich terri- 
tory now represented by the ten members tVom Teimessee; and in securing the bene- 
fits of the ordinance of 1787, in the fourth section of the act, expressly provides, "that 
no regulations made, oi- to be made by Congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves." 

And Georgia, which in 1802 ceded all lier territory west to the Mississipjn river, 
required of Congress, in the treaty which she and the Federal commissioners entered 
into for its transfer, that the provisions of the same ordinance, in all its parts, should 
be f^xtended to th^ ceded territory, "that article only excepted which forbids slavery." 

Now, do not these facts show, that, in the early history of our Goveriunent, and 
when its boundaries were expanding, it was no well-founded objection to the ac(jui- 
pition of territory, and the formation of future States tlierefrom to 'be brought into 
the Union, that slavery would be permanently established there? Aiul although 
it was excluded from the whole Northwest, it is planted ineradicably upon the soil 
of that entire region which stretches westward from the Atlantic slaveholding States 
towards the IMississippi. 

"When the nation has accepted these cessions, and upon these terms, why is it that 
at this late day it is urged in argument that whatever may have been the individual 
opinions of the statesmen of the aire to which I have referri:;d the policy of tlie 
Government at that lime was hostile to the existence of slavery, and intended, so 
far as its powers could he exercised, to prohibit it and curtail its extension? 

Again, in ISO.", we acquired that territory lying west of ihe llississij>pi river, 
known as the Louisiana j)urchase, and entered into a distinct and solemn covenant 
with the first Napoleon that the inliabitants of the ceded tenitory should be, as 
soon as practicable, according to the piinciples of the Federal Constitutii>n, admit- 
ted into tlie Union, "wilh all (he li hts, adviuitages, and inununities of cili/.ens 
of the United States, ami in the meantime should be maintnhi'd and protected inth e 
free enjoyment of //leir libertii, -propcrtji, and the relui'iou w/iick t/ie>/ profesn." 

And when later in 1819, we obtained possession of Florida from Spain, it was ac- 
quired as slaveholding territory — held as such during its territorial existence, and so 
tdtimately was received into the Union. 

Do not these facts and this brief review denmnstrate that if the policy of the 
early fathers of the Republic contemplated the spread of free institutions w'estvard 
of the free States, it e([uaily contemplated the extension of slave institutions wirst- 
ward of the slave States, in the progress onward to the bari'ier of t!ie I'acitic ocean? 
And while this was their policy, it was almost identically the ]>olic\' of those who 
adopted the Missouri compTomise of 1S2U — that of providing for the fornuition of 
free States westward to the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific, leaving to the settlers 
south of that line all the rights to which they were entitled in the absence of any 
])rohil)itory or adverse legislation. The history of our earliest legislation in regard 
to territorial ac(piisitions discloses the fact that they conlenqdated and intended to 
cai'ry out, even down t<> ]S2n, that ])olicy of a fair anil just division of the common ter- 
ritory west of the Mississippi between tJie two sections that nnike the Federal Union. 

The honorable gentlenum from Ohio, (Mr. Tompkins,) and others with hini, have 
declared the Missouri compromise to be itself an aggression upon the lights of the 
Jioi-thern Stales, and, with some show of inconsistency, its repeal another aggression 
upon the same rights. An aggression, to extend a ))rohibitory act to all tiic Terri- 
tories which lie north of 80° 8o', and to leave the others subject to all the contin- 
gencies which attend the formation and establishment of infant political communi- 
ties! And this is all that was done by tliose who adopted the measures of 1820. 
Slavery is prohibited north of 36° 30', without any declaration as to the condition 



"■-of the territory lying south-ward of that line. Well, sir, who were the parties to 
■rmake the compromise line? A recurrence to that portion of our history will show 
~" that at that time a raoi'e dangerous jjroposition — one now scarcely advanced hy any 
\ politician — was asserted and attempted to he ingrafted into our policy ; and that was, 
the insertion into the fundamental act for the admission of new States a permanent 
";; ^disability to establisli the institution of slavery there, although there we stood face 
"to face with the most solemn covenant, by which we had pledged the faith of this na- 
s'tion to the French Government to give to Missouri and every other part of that ter- 
\^ritory which we acquired all the rights which appertain to any other State when 
they come into the Federal Union. There was a proposition to restrict and hamper 
her, to introduce Missouri into the Union subjected to disabilities which do not at- 
tach to any other Slate of the Confederacy. 

The history of tliese proceedings shows "that the South was not disposed to accept 
that or any prohibitory legislation ; and if gentlemen will examine the record of the 
various votes which were given while thai; measure was under consideration, and 
during the session of Congress at which it was nltimatelj' adopted, they will find 
that t\vo diverse propositions to restrict slavery were pressed bj- the Senate and 
House respectively; that in the House being a peremptory — present and prospec- 
tive — prohibition of slavery within the limits of the State of Missouri; and the 
counter proposition in the Senate, ultimately adopted and constituting the prohibi- 
tory section of the Missouri compromise, asit is now so well known to the country. 
Comint,' from a northern Senator, offered to the South by the IS'^orth, that ultimately 
was adopted bv a vote which tlie .Journals show consists ot a larger proportion of 
noitliern than of southern members. 

While it is true that northern Representatives preferred and pressed their amend- 
ment excluding slavery from the incoming State, yet when they found the Senate 
unyielding in its opposition, they receded, and adopted the restriction in its present 
form by a vote of 134 ayes against 42 noes. In this aflirmative vote there were 95 
northern members and 39 southern; while the negative consisted of 5 northern and 
37 southern members. So that while the vote of southern Representatives stands 
nearly equally divided, that of northern is as 95 to 5. Has the South ever faltered 
in her efforts"to maintain and defend this fair and equitable proposition, by which 
we are to take this common property and divide it between us? I propose to refer 
to a few occasions when the subject came up in the two Houses of Congress, with a 
view of showing that almost uniformly southern members were for extending the 
Missouri compromise to the Pacitio, making it a final settlement of the whole ques- 
tion of dom.estic slavery between the different parts of the Union. While on the 
other hMud, with almost equal unanimity, the North insisted on the total exclusion 
of slaveholders from all of the newly acquired territory and its appropriation to 
themselves. 

On the 8th of February, 1847, Mr. Wihnot moved an amendment to the three mil- 
lion bill, which was then in consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the 
state of the Union, in the following language: 

" And he it farther ennrted. That tliere shall be neither slavery or involuntary servitude in any 
territory in the continent of America which shall herealter be acquired by, or annexed to, the Uni- 
tf-d States, except for crimes whereof the party sliall have been duly convicted : Provided dhoays, 
That anv person escaping into such territory fi-om whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any 
one of the United States, such fueitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed out of said territory 
to the persons claiming liis or her labor or service." 

This proposition was adopted in the House by the following vote: 

Ayes— Northern votes 11,5 I Noes— Northern votes 15 

Southern votes (from State of Del.). . 1 | Southern votes t,.^" ^^ 

Total ^ 110 I Total 106 

The Senate having passed a bill without any provision of that kind, it came into 
the House, and the same amendment was moved to it, with the following result: 

Ayes— Northern votes Ofl I Noes— Northern votes 21 

Southern voles 1 I Soulheru votes °1 

Total 971 Total 103 

This, then, was the manifestation of public opinion as far as it could be ascer- 
tained from the action of members of the House, on the broad proposition to ex- 
clude slavery from all territory that we might thereafter acquire by that war or by 
purchase. 

In the Senate an amendment was moved to the Oregon bill, on the 10th of August, 
1848, by Judge Douglas, as follows: 

"That the line of 36 deg 80 min. of north latitude, known as the Missouri compromise line, as 
defined by the eight section of an act entitled ' An act to authorize the people of the Missouri Terri- 
lory to form a constitution and Slate fjovernmenl. and for the admission ofsnch State into the Union 
on an equal footing with the original States) and to prohibit slavery iadiertain Territbriesj' approved 



March 6,1 S20, be, and the same is hereby, declared to extend to the Pacific ocean; and the said 
eijihih section, together with the compromise therein efTeeted. is hereby revived and declared to he 
in full force and binding for the future organization of the Territories of the United States in the 
same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted." 

On that proposition, the votes in the Senate were — 

^lEs— Northern Senators 7 1 Noes— Korthern Senators 21 

Southern Senators 2G 1 Southern Senators 

Total »3 I Total 21 

In the House of Representatives, August 11, 1848, on the same amendment, the 

vote stood — 

AvES— Northern members 4 1 Noes— Northern members 120 

Southern members 7S | Southern members 1 

Total 821 Total 121 

Tn the Senate, on August 12, 1848, on receding from the amendment which the 
House refused to adopt, the vote stood — 

Ayes— Northern Senalors 27 I NoES^Northern Senators - 

Soutlieru Senators 2| Southeni Senators 25 

Total 29 I Total 25 

Again, in 1850, when the California bill was pending before Congress, tlie vote in 
the Senate on the same amendment, whieh Judge Douglas had moved in regard to 
Oregon, was — 

Ayes— Northern Senators 1 Noes— Northern Senators 29 

Southern Senators 2-1 | Southern Senators 3 

Total 24I Total 32 

Again, on June 5, 1850, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved an amendment to the compro- 
mise bill, in the following words: 

" That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing or permitting the introduction 
of slavery or the holding of persons as property within said Territory." 

On that vote there were — 

Ayes— Northern Senators .*. 24 1 Noes- Northern Senators 5 

Southern Senators l| Southern Senators 25 

Total 25 I Total SO 

Mr. Seward moved a restriction, in the following words: 

" Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than upon conviction fur crimes, shall ever 
be allowed in either of said Territories of Utah and New Mexico." 

On that vote there were — 

^YES—Northern Senators 23 1 Noes— Northern Senators 6 

Southern Senators | , Southern Senators 27 

Total 23 I Total 83 

I might go over many more votes than those to which I have referred, but I am 
aware of the tedious nature of details like these, and will not trouble the commit- 
tee with any farther rehearsals of them. I have referred to them for the pur]iose 
of showing that, on the ]nvrt of the South, we have ever offered the olive binneh of 
peace; and we offer it here even to-day. It has alwaj's been the juirpose and aim 
of southern men, without regard to party distinctions, to run out and extend to tlie 
Pacific ocean that compromise which was embalmed in the art'ecti<ms of the people 
of the country, who recollected the period when it was adopted, and the tierce sec- 
tional strifes which it allayed. 

In 1854, a new system of territorial legislation was tried. The Jlissouri compro- 
mise line was annidled in the acts organizing territorial govermnents in Kebraska 
and Kansas, and the supervisory control which had been reserved over the action 
of territorial legislatures, in every previous organic act, was wilhdrav/n. "Whatever 
may be said in regard to the rights of parlies as affected by this repealing action, it 
has proved, as J freely admit, in i^s ?y.s'u/<s, a most unfortunate step — unforlunate, be- 
cause it has furnished occasion for the fornnvtion and ra|>id growth of a great sectional 
tiarty, which now confronts us in this House and tliroughout the entire Korth. 
But, nevertheless, the necessity was almost forced on the country by the I'efusal to 
adopt any system of cipiitable partition of the Territorj^ recently obtained, which 
we owned in common, west ot tlie Mississippi. Jsorthern gentlemen said to us: 
"Slavery does not exist there, and we will never consent that any part of that ter- 
ritory shall be pressed by the foot of a slave." "We of the South said: "You are 
unwilling to divide it; then let us fall back on our respective constitulior.nl rJLrhts, 
and let t hose to whom belongs the great dnty of deciding rjuestions of eouslitutionul 
law settle this controversy between us." 

Sir, that was the condiiion of things after 1854. The line of partition was oblit- 



erated, and the .hole public domain -f^^J^^S.:^^^:^:r^L SJ^ur^ 
ingress and settlement of cifzens from all ^^^f fZ/^'^^^'H 'stion of constitutional 
ties of the Constitution alone. The 'f "^.^'^^ , ^'^''^™^';,/„f t^e Federal Judiciary, 
law and of equal rights, appropriate for the <iet^ern -a on ot the eder J 

It assumed the form of a case at law and came ^efoiete court i .j 

has been settled. It has been settled, -l-^^ever gentlemen may s^^^ m i eg ^^ ^^ 
by the highest tribunal known to the laws "V^^'^^^^'^'i' ^'\^^^ Court. 

hL been deci.led by two-third, of the nine .H?«;« f /^^^^^^^^^^^^ sectional 

Scarcely anything has transpired '^"''V^gt'^^ °? ^^^f Seitlssaults made upon 
debate more to be regretted and condemned than teMolenta.^a ^^^ 

a tribunal which is entitled to our respect ""^^/'^f ^;''; ;^^, ^^^^ of respect, that 
as a reason why its decision in the cause '''Y^^^;'''l^^,% upon the facts 
it transcended the legitimate ^>'>»"<^-'^7,,^*. ^^^^'^.^JJ -^^^ remidiatlng its authority 
as they are presented in the record. 1 ns "'"g"™!" '^ "^ J'^S JestLted view of 
s upon a'misapprehenMoo, and mvohy^s a ven nai ow a ^^^ 



rests upon a misapprehension, and I'l^^.'^.^^'^^'^'-VoV; entire record was before the 
the functions of a court of supreme .l""sdiction f ^^^^^f fj^^^^,*^ ,,a presenting 
court for its review, containing a statement of ^"^fj^^^l^l VnVh the validity of the 
for its consideration and decision those egal ^f ^^'°",'^ "l^"' V m,n upon the whole 
final judgment depends. It was called "l->^^ " [f ■Jji^,;?,, ^^ f 't1 eTe'tion of the 
record, and it rendered, what, m its opinion, was the i 'S'^" '^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^s itself di- 

validitv under the Constitution of the Missouri c^^^''^. ^/^^^fw^rt Jce areued- 
xectlv presented to the court in the facts of the case. ^^ f^^^^f^i^'^^, ^ij^red bv the 
argued with ability and talent of the highest ^^"^^ -^l'^^^^^^^^^ that'finds 

court; and the final judgment \""«""f 'i.^^'^" '^'^^ ' ' ^''^V ^^^^ ^'^''^* 

no su,;erior for learning, research, and logic, in the ^"fl; f ^"J^l^'^J^f j^.^tice, who 
was the conclusion at which the court arrived? ^J^ ^^hi.^t^e Ch^^^ 
delivers the opinion of the court, after ^^'^^''^f,* \^^Ve no dil ^S o^betwe^ that 
right of property of the master in a slave, and ^ ^f^ "f,.^';;!'''^^ that "theriuht 
description of property and ot^'^^' P'-«f ^^^ ^^'"^'tS.n'd iifthe Con titution and 
of property in a slave is disti^nctly f "^^expressly afh™ ni the Consm ,^^^^^ 

announces the result of his reasoning m these words : 

"rpontheseconsiderations.it is the opinion of tbe -"^ that U.e a of ^^^^^^^^ 
^A!^]!^^^^S^^:i^^ -;?;S.?1U^ C^ililu^n, and^is there.re void." 

That is the opinion of the court as P-nounced by the C^ief^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ 
attention of the committee to the evidence, which I find m the 1 ^^^^^_ 

Wayne, as to the extent the opinion was concurred in by the memoeis 

"Two of thejud.es, Mr. Justices McLean and Curtis, f^^^^^^^^^^cot 
third, Mr. Justice Nelson, ^ives a ^eparate op.mon upon a n gl. po^^^^^^^ ,.^^^ expressing 

cur, assuming that the Cireuu Court li'V\,»"^/'^'''^!^.,'.'''^'nown commonly as the Missouri compro- 

If disputed points declare constitutional ^^ are capable of being detp^ 
controversies growing out of them are ever to be brough to a clo.e ^^^^^ f^^^^ 

ions iVossess any authority, or command ""yXconstit it on, in providing forms of 
question of the competency ot C«/ig':f s. "'^Jer t,h. Con. ttm |^^^^^ ^^^ 

temporary government for the Territories, ^o deny to caiij one^^i ^^^^_ 

only an equal, but any participation with others n ^^^'^^.^^'^X^.^.^.p^tion would 
moi property, by excluding the labor and proper y ^^ "^^^^J^. f t'^^ ^e, has been 
be of any practical advantage, or confiscating it ^^lKu remo%eu 

authoritatively determined ^8'^'.^^^,^^';;^^^°^^"^;^ pre=e.:ed in the facts of the Dred 
When a grave and great question, such as tnat pre.ei United States, a 

Scott case, is properly brought before the Supreme g^.-o t e UmtcU 
tribunal, by the very terms of the Constitution, ln^es el .tht^^^^^^^ 

all cases " in law and ^q^ity/^^^^g^.f • t^ .r?re?:t on o the law which sustains 
and maturely considered and decided, the interpretation oi tuc 
and iustifies the decision must be accepted as correct. arising 

"Whether it involves a question of --titutional construo. ,on oi of a law^ 
under it, the court is constituted, under our systen the ^ ' ^^ '^^^^ ^^^^ Mr. Chair- 
Federal Government and its departments are concerned^ I a m> °J ^"J^ j ^he 
man, most wanton and uncalled for a.ssaults have ^f «^7?^ ^^J *^^^^^^^^^^ Suee- 

distinguished gentleman so long voted for by the ^^^J. ^^^"^ ^^^^g^^tji ^hich I 
MAX) spoke of it in the city of New lork m t^™ ^^ f;°°S ^XerTom York, 

wUl not in this presence repeat ; and another gentleman, a member n cm in e . 



(Mr. CoNKLiNG,) took occasion to address to this committee an elaborate and able 
argument to bIiow that that court was entitled to no other respect than that which 
any other body of men would be entitled to; and that its opinions were bind- 
ing only upon subordinate tribunals and parties litigating questions before the 
court; and on them only as to tlie particular subject in dispute. IS'ow, it is not 
thus that I have learned to regard tlie Supreme Court of tiie United States and its 
opinions. It is the constituted aibiter of questioiiSj^^jf constitutional and statute 
law. Gentlemen from Massachusetts will do well to recur to the profound and 
learned argument pronounced in the otlier end of t!ie Ca[)itol by one of her own 
Senators, in those days when it was not tlieir interest to assail and impair the popu- 
lar confidence in the integrity of tlie court, and the authority and weight of its ad- 
judications. 

I will read an extract from tlie speech of Mr. Webster made in the Senate of the 
United States, in reply to Mr. liayne: 

" But sir, the people h.ave wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and 
Cribunal for seUling questions ot coiislitulional law. There are in the Coiislilution griuils of powers 
to Congress, and restrielions on those powers. There are also prohiliiiidiis on llie Suites. Some 
authorUy must therefore necessarily exist, having Ihe ulliniate jurisdicllon to fix and aseerlain the 
interpretation of these grants, restrictions, unJ prohibitions. The Conslitulion has itself pointed 
out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential 
end? By declaring that 'the Constitution and the laws of the Uniteu Stales, nuiile in pursiuince 
thereof, shall be the sui>reme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to 
the contrary notwithstanding.' This was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the Con- 
stitution and laws of the United Stales is tleclared. The jieople so will it. No State law is to be 
valid which comes in conflict with the Constitution or any law otthc United States. But who shall 
decide this question of interfereueeV To whom lies Ihe last appeal. This the Conslitulion itself 
decides also by declaring thai 'ahe judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under Ihe Consti- 
tution and laws of the l.lhited Slaies.' These two proposithms cover tlie whole ground. Tliey are in 
truth the keystone of the arch. With these it is a Constitution ; without them, it is a Confederacy." 

Again, in the argument which he addressed to tiie Senate, in rejily to Mr. Cal- 
houn in 18o3, he sums up the conclusions to which his argument carried him; and 
the following is one of them: 

" 3. That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitution of the United States, nets of Con- 
gress passed in pursuance of it, and treaties; and that, in eases not capable of assuming Hie char- 
acter of a suit in law or equity. Congress must judge of, and finally interiiret. this supreme law, so 
often as it has occasion to pas's acts of legislation ; and in ciiwi capdl/le of assuming, and actually 
assuming, the character ot a suit, the Sujireuie Court of the United States is the final interpreter." 

Declarations to tlie same effect have been made by the Supreme Court of tlie 
Stale of Massachusetts, whose decisions, from the learning and ability whicli they 
exhibit, command as much resjiect and possess as much wcigiit in tlie courts of 
^'orth Carolina, as those of any otlier tribunal in the land. In Simms's case, decided 
in 1851, reported in 7 Cushing, the court, after declaring that the act, of 1850 was 
constitutional to the same extent as the act of 1793, and after citing various author- 
ities, State and Federal, including some from the State of Massachusetts, to the effect 
that that act was beyond question within the competency of t^ongress to enact, 
finally announces this'as indicative of the respect which, in their judgment, was due 
to tlie decision of the Supreme Court: 

" The principle of adhering lo j udicial precedent, especially that of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, in a case depending upon the Constitution and laws of the United States, and thus placed 
within t/ieir Kpecial and Jinal jurix'Jiciion, m iihsnlutely veceittdri/ to the jx-aee. union, and har- 
monious action of the State anil General Governments The preservation nf both, wllh their full 
and entire powers, eacli in its proper sphere, was regarded by tin; trainers of the Cimstitution, and 
has ever since been regarded, as essential to the peace, order, and ))rosperity of the United Siaies." 
Such is the estimation in which alike statesmen and judges lield the decisions of 
the highest Federal court. Sucli was its recognized and admitted antliority with 
the jirofoundest constitutional lawyers of his day, and with one of the most learned 
and distinguished State courts of the Union. 

And now, sir, why is it that tiie same court is no longer regarded, in the estima- 
tion of gentlemen from tlie Xorth, with tlie respect which was once felt for its de- 
cisions?' Wliether or not that court possesses the ability and learning which dis- 
tinguished it when ].resided over by Chief Justice Marshall, yet as a tribunal, in- 
vested with full and ab.solute power to tletermine in cases arising before it questions 
of constitutional law, why should it be now so fiercely assailed, and the effort to 
displace It from the pojmlar regard so persistently pressed? It, is not difhcult to 
suggest the answer. It has been called on to decide, and lias decided. ;i (|ue,stion of 
con.stitutional power, the attempt to exorcise which had aroused and inflamed sec- 
tional passions to the highest degree. It has witlidrawn from the arena of party 
strife a ijue.stion u[)on which a great political organization rested. ^ Submission to its 
authority would lead to the disintegration of an organization built up on a propo- 
sition it"ha3 declared, at war with tlio Constitution. It is a life struggle with that 
authority, and it must be resisted. 

Biit is it true, as insisted on, that decisions of the highest court nreob'igatory 
only upon subordinate courts and parties to the litigation before it, and in this case 



only so far as the particular matter in dispute is concerned ? In a larger sense are 
they not binding upon the conscience of a*y man? Sncli a narrow view of the 
functions of the hii^hest tribunal of a State cannot be a cuiTcct one. It would de- 
grade it to tlie place of a mere arbitrator, and render it worthless for any piactical 
social good. In the view of the Constitution, it lias a higher office than simply to 
dispose of personal controversies, and to decide conflicting claims. Tliese it does; 
but in doing them it accomplishes a higher object. It has a larger sphere of duty. 
It establishes precedents; ascertains and settles princijdes; defines rights; deter- 
mines and enforces law. Silently and steadily it is building up a great system of 
jurisprudence u]ion which securely repose the peace and gooi] order of society. Tlie 
mantle of its influence which, like the dews of heaven, fall upon every part of the 
land, is tlirown around ever}^ interest of society, guarding it from violence and 
wrong, and in its bosom each personal and political ritrlit fluds a sure and ample 
guaranty. This all-pervading sense of the power and majesty of law, as recognized 
and enforced in the adjudications of the courts, so essential to the public peace and 
the security of individual right, inspires the respect which is felt for their authority 
and the confidence with which it is maintained. Eradicate from the heart of the 
people this sentiment of reverence for judicial authority and judicial expositions of 
the law, and you have done much to destroj^ the safeguards which are now provid- 
ed for the liberties and rights of the people. It is a disloyal spirit to the institu- 
tions of the country. 

I find that my time is rapidly passing, and I have no disposition to detain the 
committee unnecessarily further on this subject. 

I shall dismiss the topic by expressing my hearty concurrence in the tone and sen- 
timent to which my friend, the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, (Mr. Nklson,) 
gave utterance a short time ago, in the discussion of the Utah polygamy bill. He 
expressed himself thus: 

"Most imquestionably I think, Mr. Speaker, that since the decision in the Dred Scott case — a de- 
cision made by the highest tribunal in our own country and in the world ; by the only tribunal which 
is recognized as the dual arbiter on questions of ronstitutional law; a decision which I think was 
made directly upon the point before the court, and not an ohiUr dictum, as arguments in various 
parts of the country have assumed — I say, sir, upon that decision, that I hold Congress has no power 
to interfere with the institution of slavery in the Territories; because that institution is recognized. 
In some form or other, in three different places in the Constitution : first, in the provision as to the 
rendition of fugitives from labor; secondly, in the representation founded upon the ownership of 
slaves; and thirdly, the recognition of the African slave trade, and the power vested in Congress to 
abolish it. Believing that it is the duty of every good citizen— every truly patriotic man — to yield a 
ready obedience to the decisions of the higliest tribunal of the land, I think we ought all to be con- 
tent with the announcement that has been made there as to what is the law — what are our constitu- 
tional rights — what are our respective duties on the subject. 1 am satisfied with it. The learning, 
the integrity, the independence, of that exalteil tribunal, which could have had no motive under 
heaven to mislead it, should command the confidence and respect of the whole country; and every 
law-abiding man who reflects that there must be som.e point at which litigation is to cease, some 
period when strife must terminate, ought to be satisfied with it." 

"Well, sir, at last what is to become of this controversy ? Will enactments still be 
pressed and passed in opposition to the decision of that tribunal ? Do not gentlemen 
of the North know that the same jtidicial power wliich defeated the operation of the 
act of 1820 will declare such restriction null and void in every other case which arises 
under similar acts passed by this Legislature? What, then, is to be accomplished 
by such a course? Why is it that gentlemen will press upon the attention of the 
coitntry the necessity of incorporating into our territorial legislation that interdict 
•which the highest tribunal of this land has declared to be unauthorized b}' the Con- 
stitution, and absolutely null if put in the form of law? Why will they not return, 
as J invoke them, from everj- part of tlie country, to do, to the same peaceful meas- 
tires which in 18.50 allayed the then rising storm? 

Sir, we legislated in reference to the Territory of Washington in 1853. One of 
the last acts of the administration of Millard Fillmore was to sign a bill organizing 
the territorial government of Washington. There was no iirovisionupou the subject of 
slavery in that bill. Why can we not now organize teiiitorial governments without 
any action for or against the institution of slaveiy in their organic act? Trtie, we 
of the South entertain the opiiuon that under the a-gis I't our Constitution we may 
carry our ]iroperty there, and hold it there under the guarantees which that Con- 
stitution affords. And when gentlemen ask me how I can eitrry into a common Ter- 
ritory property which is controlled under the laws of a State wliere I live, let me 
ask, in reply, by what tenure we carry it upon the broad oec-an, bej-ond the juris- 
diction of a State? Do our slaves cease to be slaves when ihey pass upon a ship 
beyond the jurisdiction of the State tinder whose laws they are held ? By what 
law are they there retained as slaves, except by the law of property which exists 
in the State where they were held previous to their removal, and which follows 
them where ever they go, until they come in conflict with some prohibitory legisla- 
tion in some other part of the couuliy. 



8 

But, gentlemen ask, what series of laws will you carry there ? Will you carry 
the slave system of North Carolina, or of Alabama, or of any other State? We 
carry there 'but the result of those laws. We retain the rights which, under those 
laws, vested in the owner of property. We carry no local laws with us, but we 
carry property; and for the simple reason that the Constitution, which permits free 
and "slave States to co-exist under it, will let slavery and freedom exist together in 
a common Territory, which that Constitution overspreads and extends an undis- 
criminating, protecting hand; because the Constitution, which recognizes the ex- 
istence of slavery in the States which establish and maintain it, will not destroy, nor 
permit to be destroyed, the same rights of property, when the owner goes witli that 
property into a Territory in which'he encounters no hostile or prohibiting law. 

But whatever differences may exist as to the validity of this asserted right, still 
why may we not abandon an unprofitable and exciting agitation about the unim- 
portant question whether slavery shall or shall not exist upon the soil of the com- 
mon territory during the brief space between the first organization of a territorial 
government and its introduction as a new member into the sisterhood of States. 
The life of a territorial government is short before it emerges into a sovereign State 
and acquires all tlie rights of one. While the South cannot acquiesce in an act, on 
the part of the Congress of the United States, affecting her dignity as well as im- 
pairing her equal rights, and which places her in a position of inferiority and degra- 
dation ; and wliile she claims her constitutional lights, as expounded and declared 
by the'only tribunal whose determinations are binding upon all parts of this Con- 
federacy, surely gentlemen will not hazard tlie existence of this Republic by press- 
ing upon the comitry questions of the slightest import at best, to them, but which 
are rocking to its foundations the whole fabric of our Government. 

How much cause the noii-slaveholding States would have had for complaint, had 
they consented as they were repeatedly urged to do, and not refused, to extend the 
Missouri line to the Pacific ocean, through the entire public domain, and thus allow- 
ed the formation of embryo communities with institutions assimilated to those ot the 
different States, will be apparent from tlie statement which I hold in my liand and 
will submit to the committee. It exhibits, in square miles, the extent of the terri- 
torial possessions held by the Government in the year 1850, with reference to the 
parallel of 36° 30' north latitude. 

Area of territory, in 1S50, in square miles. 

Nortli of S6 degrees Sa minutes: , ,„ , j ,^ t> i 

1 On-cr.-ii comprised within the parallels of 42 degrees and 49 degrees and the Eocky 

^fountains and the Pacific ocean ............... ^41.4ba 

2 Territory bounded bv forty-ninth parallel, Mississippi river, Iowa, and Rocky Mountains .2.3,24h 
a Wisconsin territory, between Sta-e of Wisconsin, Mississippi river, and residue of the old ^^ ^^^ 

4 Indian Territory west of Missouri and Arkansas, and south of Platte river V^h^S 

5*. Territory in California and New Mexico, west of PJo Grande to its source S-'-^'o 

1,599,247 
South of 36 degrees 30 minutes : 

1. Indian territory as before ... .......; 9(U qs^ 

2. Territory in California and Kew Mexico ^"'^''^"'^ 

262,7-29 
These observations are made in no spirit of harshness, but as an appeal to tlie 
sense of justice which I am sure pervades the great mass of the jieople of the coun- 
try Is it an aggression for nearly one half of tlie confederated States to ask tliat 
they be admitted to equal political rights? Was it an aggression to insist that one- 
sixth of theeimmon territory should be open to them, while :^ve-si.\ths wassecured 
to tlie Kortli? P.efiised this^ are we rightfully open to the charge of sectionalism 
in protesting against a total exclusion? 

I have no hingunge of menace to use in regard to the future. I, with every mem- 
ber of this bodj-, have taken a solemn obligation to abide by the Constitution of tlie 
United States, and it will be my ])rivilege and purpose, as long as I maintain a posi- 
tion on this floor, to endeavor to discharge, under that Constitution, every duty that 



I owe not merely to my own State and eonstitiu'nts, but to every part of tins wide 
Confederacy. Protection this Government must atl'ord to great and various inter- 
ests. It is the first duty of Govei-nment— the great object of its institution, and 
why will not tlic peojile of all parties withdraw their minds from the agitation 
issues which produce only the bitter fruit of sectional excitement? Why will th 



not turn their attention to the improvement of the country and the benefit of the 
white race, which we all, from the North and from tlie South, have ecpialiy at heart, 
and leave these States where slavery <loes exist as an institution to expand with the 
expansion of free States, in order tliat there may lie a just e(]uilibrium preserved m 
the future growth of the nation; that each may be deprived of the means of do- 



9 

ing irreparable harm and injury to the other, and thus all causes of jealousy and 
distrust be removed from among us ? 

Sir, when I look at the history of my own State, I feel proud that I am permitted 
to speak her views on this floor to-day. Before these States declared their inde- 
pendence, some of our people met and took tliat decisive and important stop, la 
177.5 a part of the people of that State solemnly declared their eternal separation 
from the crown of Great Britain. They issued the first declaration of independence ; 
struck the first blow at British authority; enunciated the fundamental principles of 
self-government, and unfurled the banner of a free people. Liberty has always 
been cherished among her people. Her constitution itself was brought into exist- 
ence in the first yea.r of the revolutionary war, and was cradled amidst the rougli 
rockings of that tempestuous time. .Jealous of the rights whose conquest had 
drenched her soil in blood, and reluctant to surrender any portion of the attributes 
of an independent sovereignty, Nortli Carolina hesitated, and was the last but one 
of the original thirteen to enter the Federal Union. But she did take upon her- 
self the obligations of the Federal Constitution and plight her maiden faith, I'reely 
and unchangeably, to the maintenance of each and all of its provisions. To that 
Union, fruitl'ul in such unnumbered blessings, her devotion and love have been stead- 
fast and unwavering. She will be true to the vows of her youth. She now calls 
nyion her sister States of the North, advanced to greatness and power and holding 
tlie destinies of the nation in their hands, and bound b}' tlie same solemn covenants 
that rest upon her, to be faithful to tlie compact wliich makes us one people, and to 
rescue the Reptiblic from surrounding perils. Thus shall this Union, the offspring 
of a common necessity and teeming with the memorials of a self-saei'ificing patiiotism 
strewn thickly along the path of our progress, restmg firmly upon the Constitution, 
the base upon which our fathers reared it, be as enduring as our own everlasting hills. 



^0 * • -<4.<^^>->- •-*% 



A.3PI>ElNrDIX: 



THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 

In the House of Represer.tatives, Februarj^ 19, 1S19, the bill to authorize the 
people of the Territory of Missouri to form a constitution preparatory' to admission 
as a State into the Union being under consideration, and an amendment having 
been offered in the following words: "That the further introduction of slavery or 
involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof 
the party shall be duly convicted; and that all children of slaves born within the 
said State after the admission thereof into the Uniou, shall be free, but may be held 
to service until the age of twenty-five years" — it was proposed to divide the amend- 
ment. The House having agreed thereto, tlie vote on the first clause, ending with 
the word " convicted," was — 

Ayes — Northern Representatives 86 I Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 10 

Southern Representatives. ... 1 ) Southern Representatives .... Cti 



On the last clause — 



87 7G 



Ates — Northern Representatives. ... 80 I Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 04 

Southei-n Representatives .... 2 | Southern Representatives .... 1-1 

82 I 78 
House Journal 272— '-i. 
On the engrossment of the bill as amended and ordering to a tliird reading — 

Ayes — Nortliern Representatives. ... 89 I Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 8 

Southern Representatives .... 8 | Southern Representatives .... 48 

97 I 56 
In the Senate, February 27, 1819, on sti'iking out the first clause — 

Ayes — Northern Representatives. ... 51 Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 16 

Southern Representatives .... 17 | Southern Representatives .... 

22 I 16 



10 

On striking out second clause — 

Ayes — Northern Senators 13 I Noes — Xorlliern Senators ^ 

teoutheru Senators 18 | Southern Senatoi-s 

SI I 7 

Each House adhering, the bill was lost. — Senate Journal 321-2. 

Februarii 1, 1820. — The bill to admit Maine into tlie Union having passed the 
House and been sent to tlie Senate, the Senate Committee, to whom it was leferi-ed, 
reported back the bill with an amendment, attachiiiij; thereto the Missouri bill witli- 
out the slavery restriction, and Mr. Iloberts, of I'euusylvania, moved an amendment, 
as follows: 

'.' Provided aho. That tl'.e further introduction into the said State of persons to be 
held lu slavery or involuntary servitude, within the same, shall be absolutely and 
irrevocably i>rohibited." 

The vote on this amendment was — 

Ayes — Northern Senators 16 1 jSToes — Northern Senators 6 

Southern Senators | Southern Senators 21 

10 I _ 27 

Senate Journal, 134. 

Fcbruari/ 16, 1S20. — On agreeing to an amendment reported by the committee, 
omitting restriction — 

Ayes — Northern Senators 3 1 Noes — Northern Senators 19 

Southern Senators 20 | Southern Senators 2 

23 I 21 

Seriate Journal, ICO-'l. 
February 17, 1820. — Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, moved this nraendment: 
" And be it further enacted. That, in all that territory ceded by France to the 
United States, under the name of Loui.siana, which lies north of 36° 30' north lati- 
tude, excepting only such part thereof as is included within the limits of the State 
contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude otherwise than in the 
punishment of crime, wJiereof the part}' shall have been duly convicted, sliall be, 
and is hereby forever prohibited. Provided always, that any person escaping into 
the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory 
of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed a"^iul conveyed to the 
person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." — Seriate Journal", 165-6. 
On this amendment the vote was — 

Ayes — Northern Senators 20 1 Noes — Northern Senators 2 

Southern Senators 14 | Southern Senators 8 

34 I 10 

The question on engrossing the amendment and ordering the bill to a third read- 
ing, was decided in the affirmative, as follows: 

Ayes — Northern Senators 4 I Noes — Northern Senators 18 



Southern Senators 20 Southern Senators. 



24 I 20 

Senate Journal, 166-'7. 
In the House, February 23, 1820, on disagreeing to the Thomas amendment, adopt- 
ed by the Senate, the vote was — 

Ayes — Northern Representatives. ... 02 I Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 10 
Southern Representatives 67 | Southern Representatives 8 

1.59 I 18 

House Journal, 243-"4. 
February IB, 1820. — In the Senate the question on receding from the Thomas 
amendment was decided in the negative. 

Ayes — Northern Senators 3 1 Noes — Nortliorn Senators 10 

Southern Senators h| Southern Senators 14 

11 I 33 

Senate Journal, 180-90. 



11 

In the House, the same day, the vote on the question of insisting on the disagree- 
ment to the Senate ameudiiieiit was — 

Ayes — Northern Representatives 03 I Noes — Northern Representatives 9 

Southern Keprtse.talives CT | Southern Representatives 5 

lOU I 14 

House Journal, 256. 
March 1, 1S20. — The bill providing fur the future admission of Missouri, as an in- 
dej'eiident jiroposition, passed the House with the slavery interdict as oti'ered by 
Mr. Tallinadire, with the Icllowing vole: 

AvES — Northern Representatives 911 Xoes — Northern Representatives 9 

Southern Rtpresentalives ()| Southern Reprebcutalives "ZS 

91 I 8ii 
In Senate, March 2, in striting out the slavery interdict, the vote was — 

Ayes — Northern Senators 5 1 Noes— Northern Senators 15 

Southern Senators 22] Southern Senators 

27 j 15 

And, thereupon, Mr. Thomas' amendment was adopted. — Senate Journal, 2ul. 

In the House, on agreeing to Seuate amendment, in striliing out the prohibitory 
clause of the House bill — 

Ayes — Northern Representatives 14 1 Noes — Northern Representatives. ... 87 

Southern Representatives 7G | Southern Representatives . . . , 

9U I 87 

On agreeing to the Senate amendment moved by Mr. Thomas, (the Missouri com- 
promise,) the vote was — 

Ayes — Northern Representatives ... 95 I Noes — Northern Representatives. .. . 5 
Southern Representatives ... . 39 | Southern Representatives ... . 87 

134 I 42 

House Journal, 277. 
February 12, 1821. — Missouri, under the enabling act, having formed a State con- 
stitution, applied at the next session of Congress for admission into the Union. 
Pending the joint resolution providing for her admission, Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, 
moved as follows: 

"To amend the said amendment by striking out all thereof after the word respects 
and inserting the following: Whenever the people of the said State, hy a^onvention 
appointed according to the manner provided by the act to authorize the people of 
Missouri to form a constitution and State governtnent, and for the admission of such 
State into the Union ou an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit 
slavery in certain Territories, approved March 6, 1S20, adopt a constitution con- 
formably to the provisions of said act, and shall, in addition to said provisions, fur- 
ther provide, in and bj' said constitution, that neitlier slavery nor involuntary serv- 
itude shall ever be allowed in said State of Missouri, unless intlicted as a punishment 
for crimes against the laws of said State, whereof the party accused shall be duly 
convicted: Provided, That the civil condition of those persons who now are held 
in service in Missouri shall not be affected by this last provision." 

The vote on the amendment was — 

Ayes — Northern Representatives 61 | Noes — Northern Representatives 31 

Southern Representatives | Southern Representatives, ... 76 

61 I 107 

Thus showing that of the 92 northern votes, 6 were given for the proposition, and 
."^l against it, being nearly two-thirds of the entire vote of the North in opposition 
to the coiiipromise. — Senate Journal, 221-2. 

COMPROMISES OF 1850. 

In the Senate, June 5, 1850, Mr. Cuase having moved his amendment to the Com- 
promise bill in these words: 

"That nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing or permitting 
the introduction of slavery or the holding of persons as property within said Terri- 
tory," the vote thereon was as follows: 



12 

AvEfs — Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Briirht, Cliase, Clarke, Cooper, Corwin, Davis, 
Dayton, Dodge, Douglas, Feleh, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, 
Smith, Spruance, Upham, Walker, Webster, AVhiteomb — 25. 

All northern Senators, exeept Sprnaiiee, of Delaware. 

Noes — Messrs. Atchison, Bads^er, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clem- 
ens, Davis, Dawson, Dickinson, Dod2;e, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, 
Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Husk, Sebastian, Soul6, Sturgeon, Turney, 
Underwood — 30. 

All southern Senators except Messrs. Cass, Dickinson, Dodge, Jones, and Sturgeon. 

Mr. Seward then moved an amendment: 

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than upon conviction for 
crimes, shall ever be allowed in either of said Territories of Utah and New Mexico," 
with the following result: 

Ayes — Messrs. Baldwin, I'radbury, Bright, Chase, Clarke, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of 
Massacliusells, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, 
Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Uphara, Whitcomb, and Walker — 23. All 
northern Senators. 

Noes — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clem- 
ens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Houston, 
Hunter, Jones, King, JIangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, 
Spruance, Sturgeon, Tui-uej-, Underwood, Webster, and Ynlee — consisting of south- 
ern Senators and G northern Senators, to wit: Cass, Dickinson, Dodge, Jones, Stur- 
geon, and Webster — 33. 

June Q, 1850. — Mr. Baldwi:^ moved an amendment in these words: "It being 
hereby intended and declared that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery shall be 
and remain in force in said Territory, until tlic}' diall be altered or repealed by Coii.- 
(jrcss." 

The vote thereon was — 

Ayes — Messrs. Baldwin, Bright, Bradbury, Chase, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Mass- 
achusetts, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, 
Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Upham, Walker, and Whitcomb — all 
northern Senators — 23. 

Noes — Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Butler, Cass, 
Clay, .Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, 
Foote,' Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Husk, 
Sebastian, Soule, Stui-geon, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee — whereof 6 are northern, 
the others southern Senators — 32. 

June 10. — Mr. Davjs, of Mississippi, moves as follows: 

"And that all laws, or parts of laws, usages, or customs, pre-existing in the Ter- 
ritories acquired by the United States from Mexico, and which in said Territories 
restrict, abridge, or obstruct, the full enjoyment of any right of persons or property 
of a citizen of the United States, as recognized or guaranteed by the Constitution or 
laws of the United States, are hereby declared and shall be held as repealed." 

Ayes — Northern Senators 1 Noes — Northern Senators 26 

Southern Senators 18 | Southern Senators 4 

18 I P.O 

Mr. Douglas offered the Missouri compromise line as the South boundary of Utah : 

' Noes — Northern Senators 25 

Southern Senators, (from Del- 
aware,) ,• . . 2 



Ayes — Northern Senators, (Dickinson 

and Douglas,) 2 

Southern Senators 2 1 



20 

In the Iloiifie of liepreaentatlven, Decemher 31, ISIO. — Mr. Boot moved an instruc- 
tion to the Committee on Tei-ritories, to bring in a l«ill to organize territorial govern- 
ments in the jiiii't of Mexico acquii'cd by the treaty of Guadaloujie Hidalgo, east of 
Siei-ra Nevada Mountains, and proJiibitincf daiiery therein. 

Motion to lay on the table — 
Ayes — Northern Itopresentati ves. . . . 10 I Noes — Northern Pepresentatives. . . 101 
Southern i;<;preseutatives. . . . 73 | Southern llepresentatives. . . 

83 I 101 

February A, IS.IO. — On same motion 



Ayes — Northern Representatives... 2".t 
Southern Representatives. . . 70 



105 



Noes — Northern llepresentatives. 



':n 



Southern Representatives. ... 
75 



13 

September 5, 1850.— Mr. Toombs moved an amendment to the Ne^y Mexico Terri- 
torial bill, as follows: "And that the Con.^titution of the United States, and such 
statutes thereof as may not be locally iiiai.[ilicable, and the common law as it existed 
in the British colonies of America until the 4t.h day of July, 1776, shall be exclusive 
laws of said Territory, npou the subject of African slaveiy, until altered bv the pro- 
per authoiity." ' 
Ayes— Northern Representatives <) I Noes— Northern Representatives. . . 125 



Southern Representatives 05 | Southern Representatives. 



13'j 



OPINIONS OF HENRY CLAY. 

Extract from the speech of Henry Clay, on thr. Compromise Bill, delivered ia the Senate 
May 13, 1850, m reference to slavery prohibition. — Apjp. Cong. Globe, 573. 
"Mr. President, what have we been looking at? What are we looking at? The 
'proviso'— an abstraction always thrust upon the South by the North'^against all 
the necessities of the case— against all the warnings whicli the North ought to have 
listened to coming from the South, 'pressed unnecessarily for any northVrn object; 
opposed, 1 admit, by the South, with a degree of earnestness uncalfed for, 1 tliink, by 
the nature of the provision, but with a degree of earnestness natural to the South, 
and which the North itself would perhaps have displayed, if a reversal of the 
condition of the two sections of the Union could have taken jdace. Why do you 
of the North press it? You say because it is in obedience to certain sentiments in 
behalf of human freedom and human rights, which you entertain. You are likely 
to accomplish those objects at once, by the progress of events, without pressing this 
obuoxious measure. You may retort, why is it opposed at the South ? It is opposed 
at the South because the South feels that when once legislation on the subject of 
slavciy begins, there is no seeing where it is to end. Begin it in the District of 
Columl)ia: begin it m the Territories of Utah, and New Mexico, and California, assert 
your power there to-day, and in spite of all protestations— and you are not wanting 
in making protestations— that you have no purpose of extending it to the southern 
States, what security can you give them that a new sect will not arise with a new 
version of the Constitution, or with something above oi below the Constitution, 
which shall authorize them to carry their notions into the bosoms of the slavehold- 
ing States, and endeavor to emancipate from bondage all the slaves there. Sir, the 
South has felt that her security lies in denying at the threshhold your right to touch 
th^ subject of slavery. She said, 'begin, and who can tell where you will end.' 
Let one generation begin and assert the doctrine for the moment, forbearing as they 
may be to secure their present objects, their successors may arise with new notions 
and new principles and new expositions of the constitution and laws of nature and 
carry those notions and new principles into the bosom of the slaveholdinf-- States 
The cases, then, gentlemen of the North and gentlemen of the South, do not stand 
upon an equal footing. When you, on one hand, unnecessarily press an offensive 
and alarming measure on the South, the South re]jels it from the highest of all hu- 
-viu notions of action, the security of property and life, and of evervthiu'T else in- 
resling and valuable in life." 



te 



.Extracts from the xpeech of Henry Clay, on the Compromise Bill, delivered in the 
Senate, July 22, 1850, as reported in the Congressional Globe, Appendix, MlU-11. 
" And what will the South gain ? The South avoids the assertion by Congress of 
the dangerous principle, as they regard it, contained in the Wilmot proviso- places 
beyond controversy nine hundred miles of the Territory of Texas, on the Rio Grande 
now in dispute; gains an ethcient fugitive slave bill, and silences the agitation about 
the abolition of slavery in the District. It may hapjien— and I am' not goino- to 
disguise my convictions as to the probabilities of the fact— that the South Vilfget 
no territory in Utah, New Mexico, or California ada].ted to slave labor in which 
slaves will be introduced. But this is not the fault of Congress. It is congressional 
power congressional usurpation, congressional assumption of an unlawful authority 
over the institution of slavery, against which the South raises her voice in protesta- 
tion. If she cannot get slave t.^rritory in California, New Mexico, and Utah who^e 
whose fault is it? She cannot blame Congress, but must upbraid nature's law and 
nature 8 God. 

After stating his opinion that slavery did not exist in the recently acquired terri- 
tory, he jiroceeds: 

"If, therefore, I am right in these opinions which I have expressed, to run a line 
at 35 , or 36 30 through California, without declaring what the effect of that line 



14 

Bhoukl be, either south or north of it, would, I repeat, be I'unning a line in tlie 
fiUiJ, a line without motive, without purpo.-^e, without aceoinplishino- anj' end what- 
ever. Thei'efore, I must sav, that those iSenators upon tiie other side who have con- 
tended for an express recogintion of the right to carry slaves south of tliat line have 
contended for soMiething much more perfect and efficient than to run a naked line 
without an}' such declaration. But there are two considerations which oppose in- 
superable objections to any such recognition or declaration to carry slaves south of 
that line. The first is that you cannot do it without an assumption of power on the 
j^ai't of Congress to act upon the institution of slavery; and if they have the power 
in one way, thej- have the power to act upon it in the other way; and the power to 
act upon it either way is what you have denied and opposed, and endeavored Ui 
prevent being accomplished for the last two or three years. It would be an assump- 
tion, a usurpation, according to the soutliern docti'ine, for Congress to exercise any 
power either to interdict or establish slavery upon either side of a given line. The 
other objection to accomplishing this end is, that it is impractiedble and unattain- 
able." 

The following declaration was issued after thepassage of the Compromise measures: 
"The undersigned memhei's of the Slst Congi-ess of the United States, believing 
that a renewal of sectional controversy ujion t!ic sulyeet of slavery would be both 
dangei'ous to the Union and destructive ol' its objects, and seeing no mode liy whicii 
such controversy can be avoided, except by a strict adlierence to the settlement 
thereof effected by the couipronnsc acts passed at the last session of Congress, do 
hereby declare their intention to maintain the said settlement inviolate and to re- 
sist all attempts to repeal or alter tiie acts aforesaid, unless b_y the general consent 
of the friends of the measure, and to remedy such evils, if any, as time and expe- 
rience uiay develop. 

" And for tlie purpose of malcing this resolution efrective, they further declare 
that they will not support for tlie ofnce of Presi.lent, Vice I'resident, or of Senator 
or Representative in Congress, or as member of a Sfnte Legislature, any man of 
whatever party, who is not known to be opposed to the disturbance of the settle- 
ment aforesaid, and to the renewal in any form of agitation upon the subject of sla- 
very. 

IIKNKT CLAY, n. W. ITTLLTATID, J. L. .TOTTXSON, 

HOWKLL COBB. W. M. GWY.W, D. A. BOKKK, 

O S. MOUETIEAD, V. K. McLEAX, J. I!. THOMPSON, 

WILLIAM DITKi:. PAJIUEL KI.LIOT, G. U. ANDIiEWi^, 

KOBKt;T L KOtjE, A. G. WA'l'KlNri, .7. M. ANDKIISON, 

H. S. FOOTK, D. OUTLAW, W. W xMAXGT'M, 

W. 0. DAWiSON, A. EVAN-^. ,INO R KKRi:, 

JAS. BROOKS, II. A. I;i;lLART), J. MOIiToX. 

T. J. lUTSK, (l 11. WILI,1AMS, .1. 1'. (WLDWELL, 

A. H. STEPHENS, T. S. liAYMoN'>, K. J. BOWIE, 

JEKE. CLEMENTS, S. IMIILLIPS PIUENIX, ED. DEP.EPJIY, 

K. TOOMBS, A. II. SHEPHERD. Y.. C. CABELL. 

J. COOPER. A. M. si'iiKKMEllIIORN, II. MARSHALL, 

M. P. GE.\TRY, ]). r.RI'CK. A. F. O^YEN." 

T. G. I'KATT, J. li. TIIURMAN. 



DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM. 

From the Democratic Platform adopted in National Convention, in 1852, and re- 
affirmed in "[^hf): "Resolved, That Congress has no power under the Constitution 
to interfere witii or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that 
Kuch States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own 
affairs, not prohiljitcd b}' the Constitution. That all eiforts made to induce Con- 
gress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation 
tliereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming a:id dangerous consequences, 
and tliat all I'uch efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the hapiiincss of 
the jieople, and endanger the stability and permanence of the bunion, and ought 
not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions." 

That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the whole 
subject of slavery agitation in Congress ; and, therefore, the Democratic rsn'ty of the 
Union, standing on this national platform, will abide bv, and adhere to, a faithful 
execution of the acts known as the Compromise measures, settled by the Congress 
of 18.')(), llie "act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included," which 
act beiiit^ designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, 
with fidelity tliereto, be i-ejiealed or so changed as to destroy or impair its efTicieney. 

'J'hat the JJe/iiocratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out 
of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt 
may be made. 



15 



WHIG PLATFORM. 

In National Convention, 1S52, the Whig party resolved : 

"That the series of measures, commonly known as the Compromise, inchulinc: tho 
FuE^itive Shave Law, are acquiesced in by' the Whia; party of the United States, as 
a settlement in principle and substance, a final settlemeid of the dnngernu.i and ex- 
citinci questions which they embrace; and so far ^s the fugitive shave law is con- 
cerned, we will maintain the same, and insist on its strict enforcement until time 
and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against 
evasion or abuse, not impairing its piesent efficiency; and we deprecate all further 
agitation of slavery questions as dangerous to our peace, and will discduntemuiee 
all efforts at the renewal or continuance of such agitotion in Congress or oat. of if, 
V'/ifiievcr, whercever, or however the nttcinpt may he mad'' ; and wn loill mniri.taiu this 
system as essential to the nationality of the Whig j^arty and the integrity of the 

Il7li07l,." 



SUPREME COURT. 

In the Dred Scott case, in reference to the power of Congress to legislate for the 
exclusion of slavery and slaveholders from the territorial possessions of the United 
States, the Chief Justice uses this language in delivering the opinion of the court: 

" The power over persons and property of which we speak, are noc only not 
graiited to Congi'ess, but are, in express terms denied, and they are forbidden to ex- 
ercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to Ihe States, but the words are 
general and extend to the whole territory, over wiiieh the Constitution gives it 
power to legislate, including those p'lrtions of it remaining under Territorial gov- 
ernment as well as that covered by .States. It is a total absence of power every- 
where within the domir.ion of the United States, and places the citizens of a Terri- 
tory, so far as these rights are concerned, on the same fooli7ig with citizens of the Uni' 
ted Stales, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the 
General Government might attempt under the plea of implied or incidental powers. 
And if Congress itself catmot do this — if it is beyond the powers conferred on the 
Federal Government, it will be admitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a 
Territorial government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local 
government, established by its authorit}-, to violate the provisions of the Constitu- 
tion. 

" jYo laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of statesmen or jurists upon the 
relations of master and slave, can enlarge the powers of the Government, or take 
from the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the Constitution recognizes 
the right of pro])e)'ty of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between tiiut 
description of property and other projierty owned by a citizen, no tribunal acting 
under the authoi-ily of the United States, whether it be legislation, executive or ju- 
dicial, has a right to drav) such distinction or deny to it the henffit of the provisions 
and guaranties Wiiich have been provided for the protection of private property against 
the encroachments of the Government. 'Now, as we have already said in an earlier 
part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of pmpjcrty in a slave is dis- 
tinctly and expressly afiirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an 
ordinary article of merchandize and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the 
United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Gov- 
ernment, in express terms, is pledged to (iroteet it in al! future time if the slave 
esca]ies from his owner. This is done in plain words — too plain to be misunder- 
stood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater 
power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than, 
property of any other description. The only power conferred, is the power, coupled 
toiih. the duty, of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights." 



REPUBLICAN OPINIONS. 

Extract from the speccli. of R. Oonkling, of New York, in the House of Representa- 
tives, April IQ, 1860. 
"These, and many other considerations which the hour rule has prevented my 
adverting to, lead me to conclude : First, That the judgments of the Supreme Court 
are binding only upon inferior courts and parties 'litigant. Undoubtedly when a 
constitutional question is decided, so long as the court adheres to the decision, acts 
of Congress repugnant to the principle laid down will be inoperative just so far,_ iu 
tlie language of Mr. Van Buren, as they depend upon the courts for their execution 
and no further. 



16 i 

"Second, That the decisions of the Supreme Court are not obligatory upon Con- 
gress in any sense, but like other arguments, are addressed to the discretion of Co'n- 
gress. Being the solemn acts of one department of the Government, they are entitled"' 
to great cont-ideration fi-om tlie other departments, and ought not on frivolous grounds 
to be repudiated. But whenever a decision is, in the judgment of Congress, subver- 
sive of lire )'ight3 and liberties of the people, or is ot/iervjise lacrtfuUy erroiieotis, it 
is not only ili.e riykt, but the solemn duty of Congress pDrsisteidly to disregard it." 

And again, after quoting from ,a letter of Mr. Jeflerson, about reorganizing the 
judiciary: 

"In 1860 we liave a chance to go and do likewise, and I trust we shall improve 
it. A reorganisation a-nd rcinmgoralion of the Court with just regard to commercial 
and roLiTio.AL consid'rations, is one of the a/uspicious promises of Republican ascen- 
dency ;" and concludes tlius: 

" With this refoi-ni aceomplished, the vampire of slavery, now flitting among the 
shadows of a sheltering tribunal, will spread its wings once more over tliat hospita- 
ble domain where its ministrations are considered essential to the full development 
'of the highest type of white civilization.'" 

In a speech delivered at the Cooper Institute, in l\e\v York, April 13, 1860, the 
following language is used by the Hon. John Sliernjan, in sjjeaking of the Court: 

"In a remote room of the Capitol at Washington you will find sitting a court of 
grave and reverend gentlemen in black gowns. Tread soflly, for every thing about 
this room has a funereal aspect. It is tlie tribunal wiiich prescribes the platforms 
and writes out the doctrines of the Democratic party." 

Extracts frovi speeches iiiade April 21, 18G0, in the House of Iieprescntatlvcs. 

Mr. Tompkins of Ohio, said: 

" 1. I cliarge upon slavery that the enforcement of the Missouri compromise was an 
aggression upon the Ixorth. 

"2. I charge the annexation of Texas, whereby theJIexican wai' was brought upon 
the country-, more than two hundred millions of money were si>ent, and many thous- 
and lives sacrilieed, as an aggression. 

"3. I charge that the ado|)tion of the fugitive slave law, with many of its odious 
and obnoxious piovisions, was an aggression upon the people of the Korth. 

"4. I ciiarge that the decision of the iSuprenie Court, in the Bred Scott case, was 
an aggression upon tlie Kortii. It was a decision made for the benefit of slavery, 
and to deprive the people of the States of their equal rights in the Territories. 

"5. I charge that the repeal of the Missouri comjironiise line was an outrageous 
aggi-ession ujion the rights of the Korth ; disreputable to the nation and dishon- 
orable to the party engaged in ic; one that has brought in its train innumerable 
woes, and created au excitement that will not be allayed duriug the present gen- 
eration. 

"(i. I charge that the murders, robberies, and arsons in Kansas, were aggicssiona 
of slavery." 

Mr. McKnight, of Pennsylvania, said: 

"But wliile we say 'hands offl' as regards the local relations of 3-our own institu- 
tions, we should feel recreant to humanity, to civilization, to the euliglitened sjiirit 
ol tlie age, if we did not condemn and contest these new dogmas of tlie Calhoun or 
modern Democracy; if we did not seek to retain and secure to freedom and free 
labor that vast expanse of territory whieli now attracts tlie luisbandmau and liie 
vine-dresser. The mission of the Jtepubliean party is to secure for this immense 
area tiie multiplied blessings of freedom, always antieii)ated and desired by tlie 
eai-l3^ fathers of the Kepulilie, and advocated in glowing terms, in tliese latter days, 
by AVebstcr, Benton, and Clay; tlio last of whom said, but two years ago: 

"'Coming as I do, from a slave State, it is my solemn, deliberate, and wcll-m"- 
tured detcrmiriiition tliat no power — no earthly power — :?hall compel me to vo 
for the 2'i>3itive introduclion of tiiat line (that is, Missouri line, tiO' oU) into ne 
territory. 

" 'Sir, while you reproach, and justly, too, our ISritish ancestors for the introdu 
lion of this institution upon the continent of America, 1 am, for one, unwilling lli ^ 
the posterity of tlie ])resent iiihalntants of California and Is'ew Mexico shall repi oa< : 
us for doing just what wc reproached Great Britain for doing to us.'" 2- 

ui; 

(S: 

W- 



Printed by Lemuel Towers. 



„BRABY OF CONGRESS 



OOA 1895 906 1 




Hollinger 

pH 8^ 

MiU Run F03-2193 



